Palliative family caregivers' accounts of health care experiences: The importance of “security”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: When providing care for a loved one with a terminal illness, family members often look to health care providers for guidance and expertise. The objective of this study is to explore family caregiver accounts of their experiences within the health care system and with individual providers. METHODS: A thematic analysis of secondary qualitative data was performed. Data are from a subsample of bereaved and current family caregivers (N = 31) in a prior study of coping in end-of-life cancer situations. Data from these participants referring to experiences with health care providers was thematically coded and the concept of "security" was used as an analytic lens to facilitate conceptual development and exploration. RESULTS: Considered together, the findings can be viewed as manifestations of a need and desire for security in palliative family caregiving. Specifically, family caregivers' accounts illustrate the importance of feeling secure that health care services will be provided by competent professionals; feeling secure in their timely access to needed care, services, and information; and feeling secure in their own identity and self-worth as a caregiver and individual. In addition, the findings suggest a conceptualization of security that extends beyond trust in individuals to include a generalized sense of institutional trust in the health care system. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The concept of security moves beyond description of individual satisfaction or dissatisfaction with health care to identify a common, foundational need underlying such evaluations. Further empirical research is needed that explicitly focuses on caregivers' experiences of security and insecurity in the domains identified in this article. This will contribute to theory building as well as assist in identifying the causes and consequences of security.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".